Supply and demand isn't magic but assuming that the problem in a place like SF is a one-pronged solution is unrealistic. The post I was responding to implied simply raising the supply alone to meet demand solves the problems of housing costs without regulations like affordable housing and rent controlls. That's simply incorrect. Developers go where the profit is, and it's with the higher end market. If you think supply and demand alone would cause housing costs in SF to decline, you're wrong.

Supply and demand is an economic reality but it's not the only reality in housing costs. See my response to Charger Carl.

You cite an article that you say shows development caused downward costs in SF, but that's a combination of supply AND other regulations and affordable housing programs that exists. The arguments some on here make imply supply and demand should be met AND other regulations like affordable housing should be abandoned. They shouldn't. That won't help lower prices because developers will focus on the largest profits which equal the upper tier of the market. If unregulated supply and demand were allowed in SF I don't think housing costs would go down.

SoccerCity heads to the ballot this fall.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...404-story.html

Good!

I agree that this is a complex issue now, however, the problem is simple: limited supply. Affordable housing regulations should not be abandoned (the hole is pretty big), albeit those regulations wouldn't need to exist if we hadn't limited our supply in the first place. And developers only focus on the highest tier because they are the only projects that pencil out after regulatory hurdles are met. You find low and middle income housing where it's allowed (limited regulated Houston, Tokyo), not where it's banned (over regulated costal California).

Example: In Little Italy, Jonathan Segal has proposed a 40 unit complex with no onsite parking, allowing for cheaper rents. However, he hasn't been able to convince the city to deregulate parking requirements, so he may need to add expensive underground parking, thus pricing out the original tenants he was looking to attract. In this case, the city has effectively banned middle income workforce housing by it's own rules.

If you deregulate the market, increase supply, then costs go down. Tokyo does it. Houston does it. California needs to do it too. The sunshine tax isn't innate, it was created by the self-interested. Plain and simple.

So you think demand curves slope up?

Question: luxury vehicle sales make up the majority of auto manufacturer's profits. Why don't they choose to produce only luxury cars then?

delete

In other news, the Mid-Coast Trolley extension is well under way. I've been watching the progress up near UCSD lately. The project is mostly in the clearing/grubbing and underground utility rerouting stage, but vertical construction is now appearing at UCSD where the line curves east from the campus south to Genesee Avenue.

http://i.imgur.com/IJC2vObh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nzI68eVh.jpg

I don't know why, but I still can't believe this is being built. I'll probably be riding this trolley 5 years from now and still be dumbfounded.

Also, SDCAL I respect your opinion! Just to be clear and affirmative. :)

If this city wants to revive the blight of C street, it should start with the light rail tracks. The jack-hammered asphalt they laid the track down into is hideous.

If C street trolley tracks were revitallized to look like Barcelona's street car tracks, it would really make a difference. I'd love to see something like this on C street. Or even just remove the asphalt and replace it with tan gravel or something, anything would be better than what's there now.

http://www.railway-technology.com/up...rail-train.jpg

Nice thought, but the problems with the C Street corridor run much deeper than aesthetics. That grass would be turned into an outhouse in a matter of hours.

While it's true I don't get this idea that we shouldn't build parks/plazas because of the homeless problem we have.

Navy Broadway Complex Begins Construction
 

http://www.trbimg.com/img-58e581c6/t...ge/450/450x253

Demolition of the Navy Broadway Complex began this week, making way for the massive Manchester Pacific Gateway project which will include a 17-story office building to serve as the U.S. Navy headquarters, four office buildings, two hotels, a museum, retail promenade and 1.9-acre park.
April 5, 2017
By Phillip Molinar
San Diego Union Tribune

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...405-story.html

Oh really? Then prove it. Collect and present your evidence, I'm giving some below:

Here's a numerical model that accurately gives SF prices as a funciton of # of units, employment, and wages.

SF construction lowering rents

It's really simple. To decrease prices you need to either:
1.) lower wages
2.) increase unemployment
3.) build more
4.) reduce the cost of building

And actually, 1 and 2, in the aggregate, are the same thing. And 4 feeds directly into 3. 1/2 and 3/4 are.... demand and supply. Surprise!

Evidence clearly shows supply is the main issue. After that, parking requirements, permitting costs, environmental reviews, and delay/uncertainty are probably the biggest cost increases. We should work on reducing all of them without harming safety (i.e., building apartments out of asbestos and using fire prone electrical wiring.)


Imagine tomorrow SF yanked half or even 10% of the food service, beer/wine, and alcohol licenses/permits in the city. What do you think would happen to the price of eating/drinking out? Do you think the consequences could be relieved by creating a lottery issuing "dining out" vouchers to several hundred residents? Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? That's what they're doing with housing, though.

Or imagine, tomorrow SF (or SD, or any city) required 10 parking spacing per unit. What do you think that would do to unit prices? Requiring 0.5 or 1 spaces per unit pushes things in the same direction (albeit more gently.)

Oh really? Why are homes affordable in SO many other cities then? Is it because all their developers aren't turning a profit (:haha:)?

Hint: it's because almost every other city doesn't try to zone their city into being an elitist enclave. SF: "we got ours, f$&% everybody else."

And generally grass won't grow very well in the dense shade conditions that exist on C street. They should remove the asphalt and replace it with longer lasting colored concrete flush with the rails that won't show rust stains.

I'm excited that the entire project is going up at once! It's going to be cranes for days on the embarcadero.

With all of this new development on that end of downtown, is there any chance the power substation (or whatever it is) off of Kettner will be relocated any time soon?

Looks like the little brother down south gets last laugh!
 

LA's downtown megaproject Metropolis gets built on.... The 110 Parking lot. SD's megaproject which is bigger gets built on our gorgeous waterfront :cheers:

Can you guys imagine the Kettner Corridor once the Manchester Project plus the BOSA tower across from Pacific Gate is built, which hopefully will break ground soon, and a tower at Office Depot lot! Holy crap that is going to one impressive cluster of buildings all in a row like that like our version of downtown Miami or Vancouver.

Is this the largest waterfront project to ever be built on the West Coast of North America? Frankly I can't think of another downtown project in any Western City that is larger than ManchesterPacGate. :shrug:

We've had a pretty good building boom post-recession. It's great to see it continue, most of all on the waterfront. The Intercon will be done next year and the Seaport Village redevelopment should start around 2020. Can't wait to see the skyline in a few years! :tup:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-582116fa/t...to/750/750x422
Source